21.7.06

Some time ago I wrote on this blog how the ‘War on Terrorism’ was an unquestioned and convenient conceptual confusion for ‘democratic’ states which is meant to give them an official permit to wage an unofficial and implicit war on civilian populations in supposedly ‘undemocratic’ states ‘fostering’ terrorism, using them as a proxy to pressure their governments and their organisations.On both sides, civilians are terrorised by fear and random killings.On one side, the ‘democratic’ side, civilians are intimidated by a moralising power whose legitimacy becomes artificially democratic, seated on the fear of its people, not their reason and moral and practical judgments.On the other side, civilians are for the 'democratic' side merely a collateral damage, a secondary casualty, an uncounted crowd and unaccounted for bodies with dramatic deaths and shattered lives.

This has happened with the US’s and the UK’s ‘war on terrorism’ in Afghanistan and Iraq.During this time, the war was strongly supported in the American public opinion and, to a lesser extent, in the British public opinion, giving the leaders of these twocountries the needed support to wage their wars.However, this support seems to be fading.Citizens have come to realise that these wars are only fuelling terrorism and are not playing their first assigned role, securing and sparing human lives.Nobody can kill terrorism and the ideology behind with a traditional army and traditional warfare.

During its ‘war on terrorism’ the US has lost its nuclear dispute with North Korea, gave the Shiites of Iraq, natural allies of Iran, a gift victory on Saddam, Iran’s foe, and reinforced therefore Iran’s standing in the region, lost hearts and minds in the entire middle east with its unconditional support for Israel and has consequently and paradoxically produced, with its ‘war on terrorism’, results contrary to its initial aim.

Up to now, the ‘war on terrorism’ has produced nothing and killed much more civilians than the attack on the WTC.It didn’t even produce friendly regimes for the US, let alone winning hearts and minds in the ME. The ’democracy’ claim cherished by Bush, Blair and Sharansky and all democracy charlatans alike in the ‘war on terrorism’ appear to be more and more a war on democracy.Hamas and Hezbollah, which Israel and the US want to get rid of, are democratically elected by the people of Palestine and Lebanon.Moreover, with the recent savage attacks on civilian populations in Lebanon, Hezbollah enjoys now a support from a defiant sizeable part of the Christian population.My guess is that, before the war on Hezbollah will end, the US and Israel would have lost all their allies in Lebanon, except may be for the weakened Lebanese forces who appear more and more to be the shadow of their former self in terms of Christian support.As in Ukraine with the Orange revolution, the US sponsored Cedar revolution will be short lived.

Israel’s war on Lebanon and the Hezbollah proceeds with the same logic.Ideological cross fertilisation, in addition to tight military collaboration, have pushed Israel to adopt the same logic as the US, but this time with much more support because what is at stake is ‘Israel’s right to defend itself’, we are reminded. The License to kill was sent to Israel first by President Bush who opposed a mention of a ceasefire in Lebanon in the G8 declaration.Second, it came from all countries who acquiesced to the will of the US.Then it was approved explicitly by Condi Rice.She told the BBC that she was going to the middle east next Monday but she was not going to work towards a ceasefire because it is useless as long as Hezbollah is not neutralised.So I wonder why she is going to the middle east.

The license to kill came also to Israel from mainAmerican and French Jewish organisations, ADL and CRIF who paid for a half page to an entire page in the IHT and Le Monde supporting Isarel’s war.It came also from Isarelis who think that their army is on the verge of a breakthrough towards the peace process because they were told that finishing the job with Hezbollah was the golden road to peace !The license to kill came from Amos Oz, self proclaimed ‘dove’ and leader of the Israeli organisation ‘Peace Now’; he wrote in support of the Israeli operation in le Figaro.

The Saudi Fatwa supports Olmert in his efforts to eliminate Hezbollah so Sunni extremists will be left with no ‘competition’.Sunni extremists don't have the popular support Hezbollah enjoys in Lebanon. Hezbollah has real support because of its social programs and the prestige of a regular army who fought and won against the occupation while Sunni extremists, like Al-Qaida, have specialised in internal dissent against their own government. That's why Saudi Arabia was, for a while now, exporting its own Sunni extremists outside the country hoping to busy them with other matters than the ones that concern them in the first place; their own rulers.This is how Sunni Islamism became international: Afghanistan, Iraq and recently Lebanon.However, this time the Saudis have gone too far in not condemning the Isareli invasion on Lebanon and encouraging Fatwas supporting Olmert.

Bin Laden must be dancing in his cave.And I am sure that all Islam and Muslim bashers, from Daniel Pipes to Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manji, Henri-Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut and the secularist fanatic European and American left wouldn’t notice this Fatwa, make official declarations about it and organise petition signatures against it.

With an international license to kill, Israel is having a heavy hand on Lebanon.Nobody knows when this war will end but we know for sure that it will produce more casualties than the potential ones Israeli officials like to remind us of when speaking of Hezbollah’s threat.

Israel’s ‘war on terrorism’ is licensed and the ‘war on terrorism’, with the way it is being done by Israel and the US, is not different from terrorism itself; it targets essentially civilian populations and extracts its legitimacy from fear !All these fools going on TV and cheering Israel’s war on Hezbollah didn’t understand few things:

-No war on terrorism can be won via traditional warfare because destructed weaponry will be replaced and ideology won’t die by bombs.On the contrary ideologies tend to come out from such a crisis reinforced and stronger.

- By targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure, states who ‘fight terrorism’ are actually practicing terrorism with a ‘license to kill’.Despite an assured military victory* for Israel and the US in their ‘wars on terrorism’, this military victory is headless because once we fight terrorism with its main lethal 'weapon', the targeting of civilian populations, we agree implicitly to leave the ideological victory to terrorism.

*The military victory means here inflicting heavy casualties and losses in the enemy and weakening it.It means also occupying the enemy’s territory.

5 comments:

“And I am sure that all Islam bashers, from Daniel Pipes to Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manji, Henri-Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut and the secularist fanatic European and American left wouldn’t notice this Fatwa, make official declarations about it and organise petition signatures against it”

Another famously vile “professional Arab basher” just published a particularly ignominious editorial in the Wall Street Journal- “Zion Avenue Daily” would be a more fitting appellation, but I’m digressing as usual…

I don't comment here very often - but I wanted to Ask "De la Vega" something:

You stated that Hillel is an "Israeli sophist" - can you explain to me how Hillel is an Israeli as you point out so well when (using the site you sourced) he was a "Doctor of the Law at Jerusalem in the time of King HerodI think what you meant to say was that he was Jewish - But no, if he is Israeli and was here in Israel 2000 years ago... hmm.. you mean you admit that Jews/Israelis Lived here so long ago??

For someone who put the word "dr" in his Screen name - you are not very.... (I will refrain from finishing that one).